Talk:Designated city

Japan: Districts / Law & government High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Districts and municipalities task force.

This article is supported by the Law and government task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations:
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creation

The classification was created by the first clause of Article 252, Section 19 of the Local Autonomy Law of Japan.

Was this part of the original text of the Local Autonomy Law, or was it part of a later amendment? If the later, when was it? Nik42 06:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Why isn't this moved to Designated city or some more manageable title (like that for Core city)? Also, I don't see that it is necessary to have "(Japan)" in the title. --RJCraig 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible designations

Besides Sagamihara(which I added per NLWP and JAWP),some sources(non-English Wikipedias included) suggest that Kumamoto could be designated somewhere down the road as well... Ranma9617 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City designated by government ordinance (Japan) → City designated by government ordinance — I propose deleting the "disambiguation" article at City designated by government ordinance and moving the City designated by government ordinance (Japan) article back to City designated by government ordinance. City designated by government ordinance (Japan) is really the only non-disambig article on Wikipedia related to this term. From what I can tell, the term "City designated by government ordinance" is a specific translation of the term "政令指定都市" used by the Japanese government only, and there is no other notable usage of this term outside of this context, if any. —Tokek 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support There seems to be no need for disambiguation. Arthena (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved No consensus that the proposed title is sufficiently recognisable or unambiguous. Number 5 7 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities designated by government ordinance of Japan → Cities designated by government ordinance – No need to add "of Japan" --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Taku (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taku I am not sure why it would be helpful to remove reference to the country. I think that, in many cases, this type of reference may be common and useful. See: Category:United States federal legislation. Greg Kaye 06:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - precise enough without the country. 75.37.195.44 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the name of the topic does not include "of Japan". 2620:0:1000:157D:79A2:22D7:9E57:2A32 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (there is no ambiguity) and for procedural reasons (see above). — AjaxSmack 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and relisting. If this move goes ahead, then that brings cities in other countries under the scope of this article... Perhaps the City of Fairfield for example. Is that really the intention? Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it does seem from a quick research that the term "cities designated by government ordinance" is something that applies specifically to Japan. The City of Fairfield article makes no mention of government ordinances, for example, either in Wikipedia, or on the wider web. Also, it should be noted that the proposed title was approved in the above 2007 RM, and no further RM has taken place so technically that should be the current title anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Maybe it applies specifically to Japan, but it sounds so generic that it could be from pretty much anywhere, and we are a general-purpose encyclopedia. The proposed title erases a lot of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Geographic context provided by the current title is helpful. No such user (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Most general readers would have no idea that this specifically refers to Japan. Perhaps this title is appropriate for Japanese Wikipedia, but not English. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus that the proposed term is sufficiently WP:PRECISE. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cities designated by government ordinance of Japan → Designated city – The current name is unwieldingly long. 053pvr (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste charge-parity time 03:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is "Designated city" a term unique to Japan? The proposed title implies that it might exist globally. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer "Designated city" redirects here, and the vast majority of Google results also point to the Japanese use of the term. If it is moved however, the article might need a hatnote pointing to Census-designated place as WP:RSes do sometimes use "designated city" to refer to CDPs. 053pvr (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Designated city is a term that existed around the world, not just in Japan. So i suggest it to moved to Designated city of Japan instead. 36.77.94.238 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to designated city. There's a clear consensus to move away from the current title, which was widely agreed to fall short along multiple titling criteria. Participants were more divided between designated city (Japan) or just designated city, two options which received comparable support. Based on the arguments leveled in the discussion—including that no other topic on Wikipedia is called "designated city" and that that title has redirected to this article since 2013—I believe the supporters of "designated city" alone have successfully made a case that the DAB is not necessary to achieve WP:PRECISION, and thus that the undisambiguated title better meets the WP:CRITERIA. As an additional shield against potential confusion, I'll add a hatnote pointing toward census-designated place. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cities designated by government ordinance of Japan → Designated city (Japan) – The present title of this article fails two of our article title criteria, WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURALNESS; additionally, there is no evidence that it is actually used with any regularity in RS. Reliable academic sources us the term 'designated city', and so does the Japan Designated Cities Mayors Association. That the present title is unsatisfactory has been brought up in the past. Previously, an attempt was made to move this article to designated city, which redirects here, though that was rejected as failing WP:PRECISE. Therefore, please allow me to propose a shorter title with parenthetical disambiguation: Designated city (Japan). This allows us to adopt a concise and recognisable title that is actually used in RS. I have preferred parenthetical disambiguation over WP:NATURAL disambiguation to allow us to adhere to WP:SINGULAR, and to avoid creating the misconception that 'of Japan' is part of the name of the subject. I am not, however, inherently opposed to the title 'Designated cities of Japan', if that is what other editors would prefer. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ophyrius (he/him[reply]
T • C • G) 10:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Designated city, which already redirects here, so there's no need for the parenthetical disambiguation. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: I have no problem with this either, if that's what other editors prefer. Anything to do away with the unnatural verbosity of the current title. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I am a little hesitant about designated city given that term is somewhat generic and could be used for other countries. Designated city (Japan) or Designated cities in Japan would work. The latter indeed already exists. Designated city should probably be DABified to include other things like census designated place. Metallurgist (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Except that census designated place is never referred to as "designated city". Besides, if there is no other topic called "designated city" on Wikipedia, then this article can and should occupy that title. There's no need for a disambiguation. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support current title is not natural nor is there evidence it is a commonname in reliable sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Designated city, which has redirected here since 2013. If there is consensus that "Designated city" is the common name for this topic, it seems the Japanese use is by far the primary topic. There are others, such as perhaps city status in the United Kingdom, but unless someone thinks a good disambiguation page can be created, this article should host the base name for now. If a disambiguation page is created, its primary topic status can be revisited. City designated by government ordinance is another possible title that already redirects here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Designated city, which is unambiguous and far more concise. It's less recognisable but the resulting redirect, together with several others from previous moves, will make the article easily found, and hopefully this RM will lead to some article title stability. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.